📄 2112.02169v2.pdf
📄 Page 5 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (1) Schematics of the ten aromatic molecules used in this study.
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (2) Testing performance for the 10-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the first state.
📄 Page 13 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (3) Testing performance for the 7-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the first state. Molecules used in model generalization are indicated with blue panels.
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (4) UV-Visible absorption spectra for all 10 aromatic molecules. Thick lines repre- sent the ML spectra predicted using the 10-molecule model and computed with the ensemble method. Thin lines represent the experimental reference.6,72–76 Dashed lines represent the calculated spectra using the multiscale quantum chemical method.
📄 Page 16 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (5) UV-Visible absorption spectra for all 10 aromatic molecules. Thick lines rep- resent the ML spectra computed with the ensemble method (dashed) and with the third order cumulant scheme (solid).21 Thin lines represent the experimental references.6,72–76 The spectra of the molecules not included in training set are highlighted with blue graph frames and labels.
📄 Page 20 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (6) Linear decomposition analysis from the 7-molecule model. %group are computed by averaging the excitation energy predictions of 5000 frames.
📄 Page 21 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (7) Testing performance for the 10-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the second state.
📄 Page 21 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (8) UV-Visible absorption spectra for all 10 aromatic molecules, including the first two excited states. Thick lines correspond to the ML spectra predicted using the 10-molecule model. Dotted lines represent the calculated spectra using the multiscale quantum chemical method.
📄 Page 36 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No caption found.
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (2) Testing performance for the 10-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the first state.
📄 Page 13 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (3) Testing performance for the 7-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the first state. Molecules used in model generalization are indicated with blue panels.
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (4) UV-Visible absorption spectra for all 10 aromatic molecules. Thick lines repre- sent the ML spectra predicted using the 10-molecule model and computed with the ensemble method. Thin lines represent the experimental reference.6,72–76 Dashed lines represent the calculated spectra using the multiscale quantum chemical method.
📄 Page 16 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (5) UV-Visible absorption spectra for all 10 aromatic molecules. Thick lines rep- resent the ML spectra computed with the ensemble method (dashed) and with the third order cumulant scheme (solid).21 Thin lines represent the experimental references.6,72–76 The spectra of the molecules not included in training set are highlighted with blue graph frames and labels.
📄 Page 20 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (6) Linear decomposition analysis from the 7-molecule model. %group are computed by averaging the excitation energy predictions of 5000 frames.
📄 Page 21 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (7) Testing performance for the 10-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the second state.
📄 Page 21 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure (7) Testing performance for the 10-molecule model. εML is computed by averaging ε predictions from the 10-fold cross-validation. εQC is the quantum mechanically computed excitation energies for the second state.
📄 Page 36 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No caption found.
📄 2310.16875.pdf
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: FIG. 2. Density plot showing the distance upper limit for GW detectors (dUL GW) (see Eq. 5) for CE (left), ET (middle), and ET+CE (right) on the δt - fth plane.
📄 2304.12999v1.pdf
📄 Page 10 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 4 Schematics drawings of emitted electrons contributing to different contrasts. (a) Energy distribution of
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No matching caption found.
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No matching caption found.
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No matching caption found.
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 5 Contrast separation by changing the WD. (a) Sketch drawing of the
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 5 Contrast separation by changing the WD. (a) Sketch drawing of the
📄 Page 12 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 5 Contrast separation by changing the WD. (a) Sketch drawing of the
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 6 Contrast separation by changing the deceleration voltage in the Hitachi
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No matching caption found.
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: No matching caption found.
📄 Page 17 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 7 Contrast evolution due to the electron-beam-induced deposition in LVSEM images of polymer-sorted
📄 Page 19 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 8 LVSEM contrast separation of a CVD-grown CNT using a Hitachi Regulus
📄 Page 20 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 9 LVSEM and cross-section STEM images of a polymer-sorted CNT array. (a) LVSEM image obtained
📄 Page 20 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 9 LVSEM and cross-section STEM images of a polymer-sorted CNT array. (a) LVSEM image obtained
📄 Page 20 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 9 LVSEM and cross-section STEM images of a polymer-sorted CNT array. (a) LVSEM image obtained
📄 Page 28 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S3 The acceptance map of the Inlens detector at a WD of (a) 1 mm, (b) 3 mm, and (c) 5 mm.
📄 Page 28 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S3 The acceptance map of the Inlens detector at a WD of (a) 1 mm, (b) 3 mm, and (c) 5 mm.
📄 Page 28 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S4 SEM images of an uncleaned polymer-sorted CNT array. (a) Before and (b) after annealing in Ar gas at 350 ℃ for 1 hour. A WD of 5 mm is used to emphasize the material difference. The yellow arrow indicates the contrast referece, i.e. bright contrast of the bare substrate near the edge of the CNT arrays. White spots circled in red indicate the partial removal of the covered polymers. (c) θ
📄 Page 28 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S4 SEM images of an uncleaned polymer-sorted CNT array. (a) Before and (b) after annealing in Ar gas at 350 ℃ for 1 hour. A WD of 5 mm is used to emphasize the material difference. The yellow arrow indicates the contrast referece, i.e. bright contrast of the bare substrate near the edge of the CNT arrays. White spots circled in red indicate the partial removal of the covered polymers. (c) θ
📄 Page 29 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S5 The acceptance map of the Upper and Top detectors at a Vdec of (a) 0, (b) -100 V, and (c) -
📄 Page 29 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S5 The acceptance map of the Upper and Top detectors at a Vdec of (a) 0, (b) -100 V, and (c) -
📄 Page 29 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S5 The acceptance map of the Upper and Top detectors at a Vdec of (a) 0, (b) -100 V, and (c) -
📄 Page 29 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure S6 Statistics of the number of CNTs in 1 μm in the typical region. (a) A LVSEM image
📄 Page 30 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Table 1 Imaging parameters of the two SEM instruments. The beam current is measured by a Faraday
📄 Page 8 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 2 Schematics illustrating the charge contrast of a single CNT, a low-density CNT array (pitch> 30 nm),
📄 Page 8 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 2 Schematics illustrating the charge contrast of a single CNT, a low-density CNT array (pitch> 30 nm),
📄 Page 8 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 2 Schematics illustrating the charge contrast of a single CNT, a low-density CNT array (pitch> 30 nm),
📄 Page 10 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 4 Schematics drawings of emitted electrons contributing to different contrasts. (a) Energy distribution of
📄 Page 17 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Figure 7 Contrast evolution due to the electron-beam-induced deposition in LVSEM images of polymer-sorted
📄 2508.08441v1.pdf
📄 Page 4 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Fig. 1: Overview of the training pipeline for structure elucidation. Characteristic spectral peaks are extracted from raw IR, Raman, UV, NMR, or MS data and used to construct natural language prompts. These are input to a frozen large language model fine-tuned via LoRA. The model is trained to autoregressively generate molecular structures in SMILES format, supervised by the ground-truth sequence.
📄 Page 6 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Fig. 2: Effect of Raman spectra on structural prediction accuracy. Three representative examples where incorporating Raman spectra corrects wrong predictions made using only IR or UV-Vis inputs. This highlights Raman’s complementary role in resolving molecular substructures sensitive to polarizability.
📄 Page 7 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Fig. 3: Importance of IR spectra for identifying functional groups. Three representa- tive examples where IR spectra are essential to correctly identify carbonyl groups and distinguish branched chain configurations. Without IR input, predictions based on Raman and UV-Vis remain ambiguous or incorrect.
📄 Page 15 | 🔍 Source: unknown
Caption: Table 6: Data distribution across spectral modalities and splits.